Golf and austerity

First topic message reminder :

Is it fair to say that the golfing world during the boom years built too many golf courses. Leading to many closing as a downturn hit? Add to that golfs own struggles in the modern world in that its a time consuming activity.

There will inevitably be downturns and upturns, golf courses will come and go cyclically over the long term as the popularity of the sport waxes and wanes.

A more recent alarming trend tho is that many munis are now scheduled for that chop. Muni’s are the lifeblood of grassroots golf if golf wants to appeal to the masses. They are generally cheaper and therefore naturally more accessible to a wider demographic. Cut away the availability of municipal courses and you cut away participation levels significantly and instead of growing and appealing to a wider audience golf retreats to a more exclusive income bracket.

Commercial reality is commercial reality though and so munis simply have to up their game, I’m delighted to belong to a club based on a more forward thinking municipal. It’s over 5 years now since the council leased out our course to a private operator to run. It’s not been perfect but...the course is now much better maintained and presented that it was. The golf academy based onsite is churning out promising and committed juniors, We have a big AG store onsite (above the driving range) and our membership is up. The place is basically thriving so I’d stick my neck out and say our local council got it spot on.

Now contrast that with the news I saw in the Ayrshire Post this week, in my old home county which has something like 9 municipal courses is earmarking several for closure including Belleisle considered by many to be one of the best munis in the country. The council is being forced to make over £9m in cuts and 5 of the golf courses are in the firing line. I’m sure we were told that austerity was now over but apparently not. South Ayrshire is absolutely steeped in golf, it must bring in significant revenues to the county. Somebody needs to give them a shake about being so short sighted. The thing is once a course goes, it ain’t coming back, Not sure about some of the others earmarked but not Belleisle, surely.

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you agree that the austerity programme persuaded by the coalition and then Tory governments over the last decade was an ideological one rather than an economic one?

Probably a bit of both Mac. For example, much of the public sector is massively inefficient. Cutting funds can improve efficiencies, similarly cutting deficits in borrowing means less money going out to service debt and which can be spent elsewhere.

George1507 wrote:Has anyone played Thornton GC in Fife?

I have but not for a couple of years. I wouldn't rush back to play it again. It's a very strange layout, especially the back 9, and wasn't in the best condition when I visited to play in their mixed open. Did see the Royal train parked up en route to Balmoral while I was on my way round but apparently no-one of note on it at the time.

super_realist wrote:I'm not trying to normalise it, but you seem to be inferring that it is only under Tory governments that cuts occur or that councils are under pressure.

You were making points about Municipal golf courses in Scotland, and sidestepped the very real influence that the Scottish government plays in funding local services.  Instead you laid the blame for failing Scottish services on Westminster austerity because you didn't realise the degree to which local authorities are dependent upon Holyrood fiscal policy not to mention them digging their own grave by freezing council tax for five years. Then you overlooked that the SNP charge 1% tax more than the rest of the UK and the Barnet formula, but services here are still suffering.

Stick to the area you know, because you've clearly been away from Scotland too long to remember how funding works here as you clearly tripped up because its the left wing SNP you should be criticising not Westminster parties of any colour for golf course closures in Scotland.

Once in a while it would be better if you attacked government as a whole, rather than constantly blame one political party and ignore the failings of the left which are also responsible for failing public services.

Ah!! Now I understand why Diggers abandoned these shores, sometimes it’s just impossible to converse and debate with intransigent, misjudging lunacy, I’m outta here, got better things to do with my life. See ya

It's very simple Jas, if you make a point about Scottish courses closing and then completely ignore that this is largely to do with Scottish and local government taxation and expenditure then you aren't addressing the issue very well.

You blamed Scottish courses closing on Tory governments and completely overlooked the fact that council tax and a great deal of income tax comes from the Scottish Government and it didn't suit your argument that they are left wing and have been for perpetuity.
If you want to run away rather than admit you made a gaffe, then it's not my problem.

Super check this out.

https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/11/9/Local-Government-finance--the-Funding-Formula-and-local-taxation-income

You can see that local council tax revenue is less than 1/5th of council funding. The main grants come from the Scottish Government, which in turn is based on the UK budget. Set by, wait for it............ The tory government.

Cmon guys theres not much link between 'austerity'and golf courses closing.if the councils ran em properly they would have at least broken even.There are issues with land/assett values but an average punter wants a game of golf a club membership or something inbetween theres no shortage probably excepting some small areas.
Councils used to run courses very badly loosing a ton of money and when they finally took responsibility and looked at the numbers there have been a few casualties.Reality check.
If you have ever worked for or with a council/type organisation they have at endancy to throw money around.Did you ever see a council worker in a van more than 2 years old NO, My lot at director level have instructed me to spend an extra £1300 to get a job done when we have a quote from another contractor that will save us that money but because he is not on our list they don't want him to do the job.

Council fundings are set by central government. Central government funding has decreased massively over the last 10 years due to austerity. Councils have had to make cut backs. These cut backs will include golf courses.

It's really pretty simple.

beninho wrote:Council fundings are set by central government. Central government funding has decreased massively over the last 10 years due to austerity. Councils have had to make cut backs. These cut backs will include golf courses.

It's really pretty simple.

Are you sure it wasn't the SNP that caused UK wide reduction in council budgets?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-51576709

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/05/councils-in-crisis-with-more-tax-rises-and-service-cuts-due

County Councils and the decrease in budgets over the past 10 years.

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you agree that the austerity programme persuaded by the coalition and then Tory governments over the last decade was an ideological one rather than an economic one?

Probably a bit of both Mac. For example, much of the public sector is massively inefficient. Cutting funds can improve efficiencies, similarly cutting deficits in borrowing means less money going out to service debt and which can be spent elsewhere.

In what ways has cutting local government budgets by billions improved those authorities?

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you agree that the austerity programme persuaded by the coalition and then Tory governments over the last decade was an ideological one rather than an economic one?

Probably a bit of both Mac. For example, much of the public sector is massively inefficient. Cutting funds can improve efficiencies, similarly cutting deficits in borrowing means less money going out to service debt and which can be spent elsewhere.

In what ways has cutting local government budgets by billions improved those authorities?

EH, by not spunking hundreds of thousands of pounds employing people who do nothing? If you've ever worked in the public sector, you'd know how they fritter and waste money in employing pointless people.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you agree that the austerity programme persuaded by the coalition and then Tory governments over the last decade was an ideological one rather than an economic one?

Probably a bit of both Mac. For example, much of the public sector is massively inefficient. Cutting funds can improve efficiencies, similarly cutting deficits in borrowing means less money going out to service debt and which can be spent elsewhere.

In what ways has cutting local government budgets by billions improved those authorities?

EH, by not spunking hundreds of thousands of pounds employing people who do nothing?

Such as?

McLaren wrote:Super check this out.

https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/11/9/Local-Government-finance--the-Funding-Formula-and-local-taxation-income

You can see that local council tax revenue is less than 1/5th of council funding.  The main grants come from the Scottish Government, which in turn is based on the UK budget. Set by, wait for it............  The tory government.

Mac, Like Jas you have ignored that Local Governments have frozen council tax for 5 years and that the SNP have increased taxation in Scotland in the pound by 1p.
JAS is (wrongly) blaming the Tory government for everything, when it so clearly is not. Scotland also receives more than the rest of the UK from the Barnett formula.

I simply wanted JAS to stop taking his "Tories are bad" pills for a nano second and realise that all parties with control in local government in the UK are to blame for cuts in services, something he seems unwilling to concede because that would upset his narrative that everything wouldn't be great under a left wing government. 40% of spending in Scotland comes from Income Tax in Scotland, and then local government gets 20% of its funds from Council Tax.

Youi might want to check out some of the GERS figures (and no JAS, that's not that revolting pub football team from Govan)

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:Super

Would you agree that the austerity programme persuaded by the coalition and then Tory governments over the last decade was an ideological one rather than an economic one?

Probably a bit of both Mac. For example, much of the public sector is massively inefficient. Cutting funds can improve efficiencies, similarly cutting deficits in borrowing means less money going out to service debt and which can be spent elsewhere.

In what ways has cutting local government budgets by billions improved those authorities?

EH, by not spunking hundreds of thousands of pounds employing people who do nothing?

Such as?

I've worked in the public sector, it was incredibly wasteful. I worked in a Civil Engineers Department, and not only did they employ some real morons who were clearly just waiting it out for their gold plated pensions doing virtually nothing, they had far too many of them. They also had "preferred bidders" in the tender process which meant they ended up paying more for services.
Not only that but they built a laughably lavish new office block which could have been built much more cheaply and finished far less elaborately.

Realist, do you accept that in the uk, council budgets have been cut by central government. Which has resulted in them having to make cuts on services?

beninho wrote:Realist, do you accept that in the uk, council budgets have been cut by central government. Which has resulted in them having to make cuts on services?

Yes, I do realise that, however only a complete fool would believe that local governments and councils are run efficiently and don't have the capacity to become more efficient.

However, the point is that Local Government is not entirely financed by central government, and in Scotland's case, most of this is raised by the Scottish Government and through Council Tax, which last time I looked, was not a right wing Tory one. Got it?

JAS therefore can't lay the blame for the cutting of local services in Scotland (as per his example of a handful of West Coast Municipals) entirely at the door of the current Westminster government when the majority of the money spent in that region does not come, nor is controlled from Westminster. It's pretty simple. He got caught out on that, but can't admit it.

Realist, can you give me a breakdown of funding for the scottish government and subsequent local authorities?

I read that the bulk is from a grant from the uk government. You've said it isn't.

I would say, only a complete fool would think cutting council budgets would make them remotely more efficient.

20% of Local Government funding comes from Council Tax (which is set by Local Governments, not Westminster)
40% of income tax raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland (and we pay 1p more in the pound, so where's it going?)
I didn't claim that all funding comes from Scotland, but a great deal is. ALso the Barnett formula sees Scotland receive more per person than the rest of the UK. Decisions on what services to cut are made by local government. JAS can't accept that.

JAS laid the blame for all local services cuts on Westminster, and specifically the Tories. Local Government decisions are not made by Westminster anywhere. They are made by local government and councils and he couldn't admit that it wasn't all the fault of the Tories, especially when the Scottish government raises taxes (and at a higher rate than the rest of the UK) and has frozen Council Tax which it has the ability to raise. Yet, he placed no blame on Holyrood, the SNP or Local Governments, it's all the Tories fault apparently.

How is continuing to fund profligate local authorities at the same rate year in year out who employ lead swingers waiting for their pensions efficient? How is paying for a more expensive tender option more efficient than one which doesn't cost so much?
How is building lavish council building a good and efficient use of money?

Cutting the budget could lead to getting rid of wasteful and expensive staff, could lead to a council building which is less expensive and less lavish and cuts could lead to tenders going to a lower cost supplier. Those are efficiencies.

super_realist wrote:
JAS therefore can't lay the blame for the cutting of local services in Scotland (as per his example of a handful of West Coast Municipals) entirely at the door of the current Westminster government when the majority of the money spent in that region does not come, nor is controlled from Westminster. It's pretty simple. He got caught out on that, but can't admit it.

1. JAS can say wtf he wants, it’s a free country, if we think a government is screwing its people we can say so, we DONT live in North Korea, just because ocd you disagrees doesn’t make it wrong.
2. The Ayrshire munis were ONE example, i also used my own clubs example (Wiltshire) I could have used some London munis as another example (in retrospect I should have because it would have been fun watching you trying to blame the SNP for that one)
3. I have no problems admitting when I get something wrong (and I have although it has to be said I don’t have to as much as you e.g. a) you’re relatively recent diatribe about Liverpool living in the past...hilarious (that’ll be the current world, European and Premier league champions elect...
b) Rangers would be lucky to scrape 4 points in their Europa league group (que 8 points, qualification and now a last 16)
c) Scottish football being so dire it had no chance of improving its European coefficient forward from (what was at the time 22nd. After last night, it’s 13th
So when it comes to getting stuff completely wrong...

Cutting the budgets consistently over a 10 year period, will not make a council more efficient it will and does have an impact on service users and residents. At some point, all fat will be trimmed. Then you close golf courses, or libraries, or playing fields, or rubbish sites, or waste collection services. Do not renew children's centre leases, close young people's accommodation for social care. Its lazy to lump it all on getting rid of poor workers. Short term lazy thinking.

beninho wrote:Cutting the budgets consistently over a 10 year period, will not make a council more efficient  it will and does have an impact on service users and residents. At some point, all fat will be trimmed. Then you close golf courses, or libraries, or playing fields, or rubbish sites, or waste collection services. Do not renew children's centre leases, close young people's accommodation for social care. Its lazy to lump it all on getting rid of poor workers. Short term lazy thinking.

I didn't say it would, but consistently funding organisations who have no incentive to be efficient in the first place isn't a good way to get value for money.
I didn't mention closing any of those things you mentioned, I mentioned getting rid of dead wood and extravagant spending to divert money to more worthy causes. Can you object to that?

JAS wrote:

super_realist wrote:
JAS therefore can't lay the blame for the cutting of local services in Scotland (as per his example of a handful of West Coast Municipals) entirely at the door of the current Westminster government when the majority of the money spent in that region does not come, nor is controlled from Westminster. It's pretty simple. He got caught out on that, but can't admit it.

1. JAS can say wtf he wants, it’s a free country, if we think a government is screwing its people we can say so, we DONT live in North Korea, just because ocd you disagrees doesn’t make it wrong.
2. The Ayrshire munis were ONE example, i also used my own clubs example (Wiltshire) I could have used some London munis as another example (in retrospect I should have because it would have been fun watching you trying to blame the SNP for that one)
3. I have no problems admitting when I get something wrong (and I have although it has to be said I don’t have to as much as you e.g. a) you’re relatively recent diatribe about Liverpool living in the past...hilarious (that’ll be the current world, European and Premier league champions elect...
b) Rangers would be lucky to scrape 4 points in their Europa league group (que 8 points, qualification and now a last 16)
c) Scottish football being so dire it had no chance of improving its European coefficient forward from (what was at the time 22nd. After last night, it’s 13th
So when it comes to getting stuff completely wrong...

You can say what you like, but you were wide of the mark blaming to Tories in entireity for the cutting of local services. Shame you won't admit that you didn't represent the entire picture. You made no mention of these being controlled by local government, which is pretty dishonest.
Anyway, I thought you "were done" with this discussion, or did you get a new batch of your "I hate Tory pills"?

Why would I try to blame the SNP for courses closing down south? You didn't mention any, you only mentioned some in your "home county" and blamed the Tories for their impending closure, when it's a decision made by the local council.


Liverpool fans have lived in the past until this year in regards to the league that wasn't even in doubt.  Yes, I've been wrong about The Huns in Europe this year, but I've been wrong in that regard once in the last ten years, not a bad strike rate is it?

Super

I think you accept that the majority of the funding for Scottish councils comes from grants from the Scottish Government which are based on barnett calculations, therefore based on westminster budget decisions.

It also seems that you are happy for this budget to be reduced because in your eyes it forces councils to be more efficient.

Myself, Jas and Ben don't see the benefits of these cuts and do not adhere to the right wing mantra that reducing the size of the state increases efficiencies.

What I don't understand is that whether you see it as efficiency gains or budget cuts it is clearly a policy chosen by the conservative governments of the last ten years. What would be your argument against the current council budgets having been set by Tory policy of the last ten years?

You say the SNP could increase council tax but given that council tax makes up only 18% of Scottish council budgets and you would prefer to see budgets squeezed why would you ask for this?

It just seems like we are in the ridiculous situation where the argument boils down to the government of the last ten years isn't to blame for current public spending decisions? Are you really going to keep that up?

“Cutting the budget could lead to getting rid of wasteful and expensive staff, could lead to a council building which is less expensive and less lavish and cuts could lead to tenders going to a lower cost supplier. Those are efficiencies.”

See this is what Tory philosophy gives us...a one dimensional overview with any consideration of what the flip side would mean.

So you don’t have the “wasteful” jobs?
You make them redundant...cost?
They then don’t have a job so once their redundancy payout goes they’ll either a) on benefits how much will that cost the taxpayer, b) be on the streets ergo how much will it cost to deal with a homelessness problem??
Also, just how much spending power has been taken out of the economy when you move from having lots of people on decent wages to not having 2beans to rub together. Aye those are efficiencies that really benefit society all round. You could ring up your banking mates and tell them to sell the victims debt up to the hilt. They in turn could phone their hedge fund manager mates to bet on when it was all going to go belly up. If the financial institutions get wasted in that circus, never mind the taxpayer will bale them out and the cycle can be repeated, Jesus open your eyes Super it’s bloody obvious to most. Next time round will be even worse as we now have a former hedge fund manager in number 11. You can scorn all you like but the last cycle started with public sector inefficiency being painted as one of the main causes of the country’s ills.

McLaren wrote:Super

I think you accept that the majority of the funding for Scottish councils comes from grants from the Scottish Government which are based on barnett calculations, therefore based on westminster budget decisions.

It also seems that you are happy for this budget to be reduced because in your eyes it forces councils to be more efficient.

Myself, Jas and Ben don't see the benefits of these cuts and do not adhere to the right wing mantra that reducing the size of the state increases efficiencies.

What I don't understand is that whether you see it as efficiency gains or budget cuts it is clearly a policy chosen by the conservative governments of the last ten years. What would be your argument against the current council budgets having been set by Tory policy of the last ten years?

You say the SNP could increase council tax but given that council tax makes up only 18% of Scottish council budgets and you would prefer to see budgets squeezed why would you ask for this?

It just seems like we are in the ridiculous situation where the argument boils down to the government of the last ten years isn't to blame for current public spending decisions? Are you really going to keep that up?

I didn't say I wanted to see budgets squeezed, I said that squeezing budgets forces efficiency.
I already gave the example of my own experience of councils being profligate, yet you ignored it.
You also fail to blame local government, i.e. Edinburgh Council for freezing council tax.
Yes, approximately half of funding comes from Westminster, but half doesn't, yet only one half is blamed in your argument.

JAS wrote:“Cutting the budget could lead to getting rid of wasteful and expensive staff, could lead to a council building which is less expensive and less lavish and cuts could lead to tenders going to a lower cost supplier. Those are efficiencies.”

See this is what Tory philosophy gives us...a one dimensional overview with any consideration of what the flip side would mean.

So you don’t have the “wasteful” jobs?
You make them redundant...cost?
They then don’t have a job so once their redundancy payout goes they’ll either a) on benefits how much will that cost the taxpayer, b) be on the streets ergo how much will it cost to deal with a homelessness problem??
Also, just how much spending power has been taken out of the economy when you move from having lots of people on decent wages to not having 2beans to rub together. Aye those are efficiencies that really benefit society all round. You could ring up your banking mates and tell them to sell the victims debt up to the hilt. They in turn could phone their hedge fund manager mates to bet on when it was all going to go belly up. If the financial institutions get wasted in that circus, never mind the taxpayer will bale them out and the cycle can be repeated, Jesus open your eyes Super it’s bloody obvious to most. Next time round will be even worse as we now have a former hedge fund manager in number 11. You can scorn all you like but the last cycle started with public sector inefficiency being painted as one of the main causes of the country’s ills.

Why would they be on the dole Jas? These are people with skills who could be employed in the private sector, and capable of earning more than in the private sector, thus more tax to the exchequer and higher productivity. .
Have you never been laid off before? Did you end up on the street? Why does everything have to be so extreme with you?

The point was that you aren't accepting the role that Scottish Government and Local Government have played in the role of curtailing local services. That's the problem in your argument.

If 100% of the funding for municipal courses came from Westminster then I'd agree with you, but you refuse to accept the role left wing local governments have played on it. Especially ironic in left wing Scotland.

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Cutting the budgets consistently over a 10 year period, will not make a council more efficient  it will and does have an impact on service users and residents. At some point, all fat will be trimmed. Then you close golf courses, or libraries, or playing fields, or rubbish sites, or waste collection services. Do not renew children's centre leases, close young people's accommodation for social care. Its lazy to lump it all on getting rid of poor workers. Short term lazy thinking.

I didn't say it would, but consistently funding organisations who have no incentive to be efficient in the first place isn't a good way to get value for money.
I didn't mention closing any of those things you mentioned, I mentioned getting rid of dead wood and extravagant spending to divert money to more worthy causes. Can you object to that?

You seem to think, from the above message, that 10s of millions can be saved on a yearly basis by cutting deadwood?

As mentioned, lazy views.

Super

Look at the link I posted, 77% of council funding in Scotland comes from Scottish Government, which as you know has its budget set via the Barnett formula based on the Westminster budget.

I would also like to see evidence beyond your anecdote (which I of course ignored because it is one crappy anecdote) that squeezing budgets forced efficiency. It forces cost cutting but don't confuse that with measures of efficiency.

Ben councils cannot run booze ups in breweries.NOthing to do with funding these things should break even then they can survive
The Western golf course in Leicester(now shut ) was a very old Hawtree course really good but the council gave the golf away something like £75 a year for OAP who played every day numerous green staff and thousands of pounds worth of new kit,paid the pros a generous retainer and paid the caterer a retainer.Lost money every year so its an easy target.How many councils run leisure centre these days - none because they are crap at it .Look a bit deeper

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Cutting the budgets consistently over a 10 year period, will not make a council more efficient  it will and does have an impact on service users and residents. At some point, all fat will be trimmed. Then you close golf courses, or libraries, or playing fields, or rubbish sites, or waste collection services. Do not renew children's centre leases, close young people's accommodation for social care. Its lazy to lump it all on getting rid of poor workers. Short term lazy thinking.

I didn't say it would, but consistently funding organisations who have no incentive to be efficient in the first place isn't a good way to get value for money.
I didn't mention closing any of those things you mentioned, I mentioned getting rid of dead wood and extravagant spending to divert money to more worthy causes. Can you object to that?

You seem to think, from the above message, that 10s of millions can be saved on a yearly basis by cutting deadwood?

As mentioned, lazy views.

Insightful

beninho wrote:Insightful

I prefer to be lazy.

Soul Requiem wrote:

beninho wrote:Insightful

I prefer to be lazy.

Thanks for your input.

McLaren wrote:Super

Look at the link I posted, 77% of council funding in Scotland comes from Scottish Government, which as you know has its budget set via the Barnett formula based on the Westminster budget.

I would also like to see evidence beyond your anecdote (which I of course ignored because it is one crappy anecdote) that squeezing budgets forced efficiency. It forces cost cutting but don't confuse that with measures of efficiency.

Mac, Scottish tax money raised in Scotland is spent in the majority in Scotland, that's not from Westminster, also AGAIN you ignore the 1% rise in tax that we pay (maybe not you because your salary is so low). So what happens to that,
However, even if 77% of income for Scotland was decided by Westminster, then why aren't you acknowledging that Local and Scottish government are raising money and are cutting services?

If a council has to save money because the local authority has less money (from whatever source, i.e. Westminster, Council Tax Freezes or Scottish government) then you tighten your belts.
Let's say you lay off one lead swinger on 40k, You pay him off at 4 weeks per year worked up to a maximum of a year. then you have no further pension contributions or NI to make, then you have no training to pay for, then you have no insurance to pay and crucially and most expensively you can save a fortune on IT licences and hardware. I don't expect you to know, as you don't do a job of any worth but software licences/data purchases etc can cost a lot more than the cost of simply employing someone who isn't productive.
You haven't just saved his 40k salary, you've saved considerably more which can be put into other services. That, whether you like it or not is a saving, and an efficiency. Even in a council, laying off someone on an average salary of 40k will save you a great deal more than just that. You are no longer paying out money for something which is not productive, pretty much the definition of efficiency.

The employee in question doesn't necessarily have to sit on the dole or be homeless like in JAS's laughably gloomy Corbynistic outlook, he's more likely to get off his lazy arse and get a job in the private sector, earn more, be more productive because he actually has accountability which doesn't really exist in the public sector and therefore contribute more in the long run to the exchequer thus leading to more money for future budgets.

Do this to a few dozen people in a large organisation like a council and you've saved hundreds of thousands.

Look at it this way, if your salary went down 10%, you'd make savings, you might buy cheaper food, you might be less wasteful of what you have. You might even have to go so low that you have to shop in ASDA to make the savings, but you've become more efficient with what you do have left.
I really can't believe how you don't understand how people become more efficient when there is less money to go around. You really do have no experience of living in the real world do you?

Realist, for want of a better word, and in comparison of what we are talking about. Your whole point above, is, well basically, nonsense and idealistic.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/council-spending-on-local-services-down

Funding from central government is down 38% since 2010. Which is obviously 10s of millions if not more. That's not just a few people taking it easy. That's all other services.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-46443700

Lazy thinking.

beninho wrote:Realist, for want of a better word, and in comparison of what we are talking about. Your whole point above, is, well basically, nonsense and idealistic.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/council-spending-on-local-services-down

Funding from central government is down 38% since 2010. Which is obviously 10s of millions if not more. That's not just a few people taking it easy. That's all other services.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-46443700

Lazy thinking.

Does your opinion move beyond just saying 'lazy thinking'?

beninho wrote:Realist, for want of a better word, and in comparison of what we are talking about. Your whole point above, is, well basically, nonsense and idealistic.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/council-spending-on-local-services-down

Funding from central government is down 38% since 2010. Which is obviously 10s of millions if not more. That's not just a few people taking it easy. That's all other services.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-46443700

Lazy thinking.

For goodness sake, I didn't say that was the only way you could save money. It was an example of why public sector organisations are so inefficient. , why on earth would you think I thought that it was all down to laying off a few people, however getting rid of a dozen people, could quite easily save you a million depending on their role and all the associated costs. It was just an example of where a council can make savings, of course it's not 38% but it is a start, and having worked in a public sector for 4 years and observed just how inefficient it is, it's easy to see where they can make savings. They were also paying engineers hundreds of pounds a day on contract. There's another saving.

Of course you'll have to cut other services in addition, and thankfully we have non critical services like municipal golf courses, swimming pools (which never make money) which can be shut without causing any significant difference to the life of people in the local authority. Of course I'd prefer a bottomless pit of money for local services like Mac would prefer (and it doesn't help that councils freeze council tax) but unfortunately we don't have that, so we have to make savings, and getting rid of deadwood is just one example as to how you can make SOME of those savings. Why wouldn't you want to get rid of it? That's a more pertinent question.

Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

So does “Value for money” also include starting to reduce life expectancy? I.e. poor people die quicker and don’t become such a drain on our glorious wealth creators ability to buy their next yacht?

Super

This has been a poor thread for you. You have abandoned your internet atheist principles such as anecdote is not evidence, talking about areas of which you have no expertise, not using empirical data to make your argument, resorting to personal incredulity and so on.

Although to be fair you are probably using the Douglas Murray type argumentation method rather than someone like Dillahunty.

I hate to ask, but have you been sucked into the intellectual dark web?






(PS, call this weird but the mental image I have of what you look like is Douglas Murray but with a Kircaldy accent)


Douglas murray for anyone interested

Image of Super/Douglas Murray:

Looks like the “end of austerity” is about to be shunted another few years down the line as Western free market capitalism copes “so well” with a wee flu like bug. A lot of people’s pension pots will have taken an absolute pasting this week. Never mind, we win some, we lose some onwards and eh...downwards!!

Its flu with a different name.Stuff like this happens every few years.I will be in Tenerife this time tomorrow and back on Thursday.NO worries bad news for those affected but I am informed we loose 8000 folk a year due to flu related illness.See what happens be cautious hope for the best

JAS wrote:Looks like the “end of austerity” is about to be shunted another few years down the line as Western free market capitalism copes “so well”  with a wee flu like bug. A lot of people’s pension pots will have taken an absolute pasting this week. Never mind, we win some, we lose some onwards and eh...downwards!!

I love that you infer there's a better system that somehow our successive governments are keeping hidden like some sort of conspiracy to keep people subservient and downtrodden.

beninho wrote:Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

Jesus, you are dense. I said it was a few methods on how Council's or local government or any public sector arrangement could save money. I didn't say it was a solution, I didn't say it was the only way that these organisations could save money and I didn't say there wasn't a funding problem, but if anyone genuinely thinks that public sector organisations could not benefit from being more efficient than they have no place in this discussion.

JAS wrote:So does “Value for money” also include starting to reduce life expectancy? I.e. poor people die quicker and don’t become such a drain on our glorious wealth creators ability to buy their next yacht?

Poor people have always lived less long than wealthier people. Got any other arguments?

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

Jesus, you are dense. I said it was a few methods on how Council's or local government or any public sector arrangement could save money. I didn't say it was a solution, I didn't say it was the only way that these organisations could save money and I didn't say there wasn't a funding problem, but if anyone genuinely thinks that public sector organisations could not benefit from being more efficient than they have no place in this discussion.

That's not the arguement you imbecile the argument isn't, could councils be more efficient. Its probably true, the same as a lot of businesses in the uk. My point is that constant cutting if budgets, takes you way past the line of using it to become more efficient and has a massive impact on services and residents.

The parrot view if cut budgets equals more efficient doesn't wash anymore.

Christ, if a budget of a council is cut, where do you think they are going to look to make their own cuts to ensure services don't suffer as much as they might?
That's precisely what they have done. Virtually every council in the entire country has made personnel cuts.

Can you give me an example of any council in the UK who hasn't had some sort of redundancy programme, voluntary or otherwise in the last 10 years? I doubt it.

You might also notice that I never mentioned the constant cutting of budgets year on year. You were the one who did that. I agree that if you cut year on year that services will suffer, but if you don't raise council tax for example and instead freeze it for the benefit of votes, how on earth do you expect to pay for services? Of course it's going to suffer, and I really don't care if it's a dog track of a municipal course that closes as a result. We have too many courses in this country and pouring council money into facilities that are a constant drain on resources means they could clearly be re-appropriated elsewhere and to greater benefit. Golf is a luxury.

Remember, you were the "imbecile" who accused me of thinking I had all the answers, when all I claimed was that public owned companies are notoriously inefficient and I offered a few examples of where the councils could make savings. Also remember is a story about Golf and Austerity, not austerity and the benefits system or whatever. If you want to do that, there's a Marxist on here who I'm sure would be happy to discuss.

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

Jesus, you are dense. I said it was a few methods on how Council's or local government or any public sector arrangement could save money. I didn't say it was a solution, I didn't say it was the only way that these organisations could save money and I didn't say there wasn't a funding problem, but if anyone genuinely thinks that public sector organisations could not benefit from being more efficient than they have no place in this discussion.

That's not the arguement you imbecile  the argument isn't, could councils be more efficient. Its probably true, the same as a lot of businesses in the uk. My point is that constant cutting if budgets, takes you way past the line of using it to become more efficient  and has a massive impact on services and residents.

The parrot view if cut budgets equals more efficient doesn't wash anymore.

Resorting to insults show you've lost the argument, better luck next time.

Soul Requiem wrote:

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

Jesus, you are dense. I said it was a few methods on how Council's or local government or any public sector arrangement could save money. I didn't say it was a solution, I didn't say it was the only way that these organisations could save money and I didn't say there wasn't a funding problem, but if anyone genuinely thinks that public sector organisations could not benefit from being more efficient than they have no place in this discussion.

That's not the arguement you imbecile  the argument isn't, could councils be more efficient. Its probably true, the same as a lot of businesses in the uk. My point is that constant cutting if budgets, takes you way past the line of using it to become more efficient  and has a massive impact on services and residents.

The parrot view if cut budgets equals more efficient doesn't wash anymore.

Resorting to insults show you've lost the argument, better luck next time.

Ok...exactly what Ben said, minus the personal insults...How did I do?

Soul Requiem wrote:

beninho wrote:

super_realist wrote:

beninho wrote:Case closed, realist did 4 years at a council. He is the font of all knowledge on the inner workings. Cut staff, close services, screw the residents. Easy. That's your £20m for year one.

Jesus, you are dense. I said it was a few methods on how Council's or local government or any public sector arrangement could save money. I didn't say it was a solution, I didn't say it was the only way that these organisations could save money and I didn't say there wasn't a funding problem, but if anyone genuinely thinks that public sector organisations could not benefit from being more efficient than they have no place in this discussion.

That's not the arguement you imbecile  the argument isn't, could councils be more efficient. Its probably true, the same as a lot of businesses in the uk. My point is that constant cutting if budgets, takes you way past the line of using it to become more efficient  and has a massive impact on services and residents.

The parrot view if cut budgets equals more efficient doesn't wash anymore.

Resorting to insults show you've lost the argument, better luck next time.

Insightful again, thanks for your input. Though I think I was called dense, first.